Historical Estimat
Canadian Labour Force
ANK T. DENTON AND SYLVIA OSTR
!•
I
Historical Estimates
of the Canadian Labour Force
by
Frank T. Denton and Sylvia Ostry
ONE OF A SERIES OF LABOUR FORCE STUDIES
in the
1961 CENSUS MONOGRAPH PROGRAMME
DOMINION BUREAU OF STATISTICS
OTTAWA, CANADA
1967
Published under the Authority of
The Minister of Trade and Commerce
©Crown Copyrights reserved
Available by mail from the Queen's Printer, Ottawa,
and at the following Canadian Government bookshops:
HALIFAX: 1737 Barrington St.
OTTAWA: Daly Building, corner Mackenzie Ave. and Rideau St.
TORONTO: 221 Yonge St.
MONTREAL: Mtema-Vie Building, 1182 St. Catherine St. West
WINNIPEG: Mall Center Bldg., 499 Portage Ave.
VANCOUVER: 657 Granville St.
or through your bookseller
Price: 75 cents Catalogue No. MS 99-549/1967
ROGER DUHAMEL, F.R.S.C.
Queen's Printer and Controller of Stationery
Ottawa, Canada
1967
Foreword
The Canadian Censuses constitute a rich source of information about
individuals and their families, extending over many years. The census data
are used widely but it has proved to be worthwhile in Canada, as in some
other countries, to supplement census statistical reports with analytical
monographs on a number of selected topics. The 1931 Census was the
basis of several valuable monographs but, for various reasons, it was
impossible to follow this precedent with a similar programme until 1961.
Moreover, the 1961 Census had two novel features. In the first place, it
provided much new and more detailed data, particularly in such fields as
income, internal migration and fertility, and secondly, the use of an
electronic computer made possible a great variety of tabulations on which
more penetrating analytical studies could be based.
The purpose of the 1961 Census Monograph Programme is to provide a
broad analysis of social and economic phenomena in Canada. Although the
monographs concentrate on the results of the 1961 Census, they are supple-
mented by data from previous censuses and by statistical material from
other sources. The present Study is one in a Series on the Canadian
labour force. In addition to these Labour Force Studies, monographs will
be published on marketing, agriculture, education, fertility, urban develop-
ment, income, immigration, and internal migration.
I should like to express my appreciation to the universities that
have made it possible for members of their staff to contribute to this
Programme, to authors within the Dominion Bureau of Statistics who have
put forth extra effort in preparing their studies, and to a number of other
members of DBS staff who have given assistance. The Census Monograph
Programme is considered desirable not only because the analysis by the
authors throws light on particular topics but also because it provides
insight into the adequacy of existing data and guidance in planning the
content and tabulation programmes of future censuses. Valuable help in
designing the Programme was received from a committee of Government
officials and university professors. In addition, thanks are extended to the
various readers, experts in their fields, whose comments were of consider-
able assistance to the authors.
Although the monographs have been prepared at the request of and
published by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, responsibility for the
analyses and conclusions is that of the individual authors.
DOMINION STATISTICIAN.
IV
Preface
This is the first of a series of studies dealing with selected aspects
of the labour force in Canada as revealed, in the main, by the 1961 and
earlier Censuses. The present study provides new historical estimates of
the labour force on a definitionally consistent basis. These estimates will
be used for purposes of analysis in some of the later studies in the series.
We wish to thank members of the Census Division of the Dominion
Bureau of Statistics, in particular Mrs. A.J. Kempster and Mr. A.H.
LeNeveu, for their co-operation and assistance in providing data and
constructive criticism. We are most grateful, too, for the helpful comments
of Mr. D.J. Bailey, Director, Labour Division, Mr. N.L. McKellar, Director,
Central Classification Research and Development Staff, and Mr. W.A.
Nesbitt, Assistant Director, Special Surveys Division. The usual obser-
vation, with respect to the authors' responsibility for error, of course
applies.
Frank T. Denton,
Director, Econometric Research, DBS
Sylvia Ostry,
Director, Special Manpower Studies and
Consultation, DBS
OTTAWA. 1967
Table of Contents
Page
FOREWORD iii
PREFACE v
LIST OF TABLES viii
1. INTRODUCTION 1
The Gainfully Occupied 1
The Labour Force 5
2. ESTIMATES OF THE LABOUR FORCE BY AGE AND SEX, 1921-1961 9
General Methodology 11
The Gainfully Occupied in 1951 and the Conversion Ratios 12
3. ESTIMATES OF THE LABOUR FORCE BY SEX, 1901 AND 1911 15
4. ESTIMATES OF THE TOTAL LABOUR FORCE, 1851-1891 17
TABLES 19
APPENDICES 31
A. ESTIMATION OF ADJUSTMENT GROUPS 32
B. THE REVISED UNITED STATES LABOUR FORCE DEFINITION . . 35
C. DECENNIAL CENSUS QUESTIONS, 1871-1961 37
D. LABOUR FORCE SURVEY QUESTIONS 48
Vll
List of Tables
Page
Table 1 — Adjustment Groups for Use in Estimating 1951 Gainfully Occupied,
by Age and Sex 20
Table 2 — Calculation of Conversion Ratios, by Age and Sex, Based on 1951
Data 21
Table 3 — Population, Gainfully Occupied and Labour Force, by Age and Sex,
1921 (excluding Newfoundland) 22
Table 4 — Population, Gainfully Occupied and Labour Force, by Age and Sex,
1931 (excluding Newfoundland) 23
Table 5 — Population, Gainfully Occupied and Labour Force, by Age and Sex,
1941 (excluding Newfoundland) 24
Table 6 — Population and Labour Force, by Age and Sex, 1951 (excluding
Newfoundland) 25
Table 7 — Population and Labour Force, by Age and Sex, 1961 (excluding
Newfoundland) 26
Table 8 — Population and Labour Force, by Age and Sex, 1951 (including
Newfoundland) 27
Table 9 — Population and Labour Force, by Age and Sex, 1961 (including
Newfoundland) 28
Table 10 — Population, Gainfully Occupied and Labour Force, by Sex, 1901
and 1911 (excluding Newfoundland) 29
Table 11 - Total Labour Force, 1851-1961 (excluding Newfoundland) 29
J. Introduction
Prior to November 1945, when the Labour Force Survey commenced,
the only comprehensive estimates of the economically active population in
Canada were the measures provided by the decennial censuses.1 The
definition of the economically active was, however, based on different
criteria in the censuses before 1951 than in those of 1951 and 1961. This
study presents a series of census-date estimates of the economically
active population adjusted to a consistent definitional base. Before
describing the method of estimation and presenting the statistics them-
selves, it is necessary to discuss the two concepts of the economically
active which have been used in the censuses— the gainfully occupied and
the labour force.
THE GAINFULLY OCCUPIED
In the 1941 and earlier censuses of Canada, a count of gainful
workers (10 years and over prior to 1941; 14 years and over in 1941) was
secured in answer to a question on occupation. Thus the 1941 Census
defined gainful occupation2 as "one by which the person who pursues it
earns money or in which he assists in the production of goods". Children
working at home on general household duties or chores, or at odd times at
other work, were not to be reported as having an occupation. Similarly,
women doing housework in their own homes without salary or wages were
to be reported as "homemaker". The enumerator was instructed to make an
entry in the "Occupation" column for every person of 14 years of age and
over, the entry being one of the following: (a) the chief occupation of every
gainfully occupied person; (b) retired; (c) homemaker; (d) student; (e) none.
Further, the enumeration instructions went on to explain each of the
entries (b) to (e). Thus "retired" was defined to include "persons who on
account of old age, permanent physical disability or otherwise are no
However, it should be noted that during the Second World War the Department of Labour,
in co-operation with other government agencies, developed estimates of the total econom-
ically active population and its main components which were published at least annually
by the Wartime Information Board in its bulletins, Canada at War. Cf. "Recapitulation
Issue", No. 45, Wartime Information Board, Ottawa, 1945.
2
The description in the text of the gainful worker concept as used in the 1941 Census is
taken from Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Instructions to Commissioners and Enumerators,
Eighth Census of Canada, 1941, pp. 47-50.
HISTORICAL ESTIMATES OF CANADIAN LABOUR FORCE
longer following a gainful occupation. Only persons who at some time had
a gainful occupation and are no longer employed nor seeking employment
shall be reported as 'retired'."
"Homemaker" referred to "a woman doing housework in her own
home, without wages or salary, and having no other employment but being
responsible for the domestic management of the home". But if a woman,
in addition to doing housework in her own home, "regularly earns money at
some other occupation, whether carried on at home or outside, then that
occupation (should) be entered. . . .and not 'homemaker' ". (Emphasis
added.) Moreover, in the case of a farm woman, the entry should be "farm
labourer" only if she were working regularly and most of the time at outdoor
farm work, such as caring for livestock or poultry on a farm operated by
someone else.
"Student" was defined as "every person, 14 years of age and over,
regularly attending school or college or receiving private tuition. Even if
earning small sums of money after school or on Saturdays as messenger,
newsboy, etc., he or she shall be enumerated as a student. Only when the
person is not attending school and is employed most of the day at some
occupation, or is wholly assisting his or her parents or any other person
on a farm, in a store, etc., will he or she be reported as having a gainful
occupation." (Emphasis added.)
An entry of "none" or "no occupation" was possible in three cases:
(1) for adult dependants such as invalids at home or in institutions,
persons with private means, etc., the entry should be "none"; (2) young
persons 14 to 24 years who have never had a gainful occupation and were
not then attending school were to be asked if they were seeking employ-
ment—if the answer were in the affirmative, the entry was to be "none
(yes)"; (3) if the response to the foregoing question were negative, the entry
was to be "none (no)".
In earlier censuses, the definition of a gainful occupation was very
similar to that of 1941. The count referred to persons 10 years of age and
over, instead of 14. Both the 1931 and 1921 enumerator instruction manuals
warned that a person who was temporarily unemployed might state that he
had no occupation but the enumerator should record the occupation followed
when the individual was regularly employed.
It is clear from the foregoing exposition of the instructions provided
to the census enumerators that the definition of the gainfully occupied
centred on occupation and, moreover, that occupation was viewed as a
THE GAINFULLY OCCUPIED
"characteristic" of an individual, a characteristic akin to, say, language,
years of schooling or immigrant status. Quite logically, no period of
reference was specified since a time reference would have implied an
activity orientation. Nevertheless, since occupation is clearly not simply a
population characteristic (in the same sense as are age and sex or even
language, education or immigrant status), some notion of activity had to be
introduced as a secondary consideration and the gainfully occupied concept
implied (though it did not specify) customary or habitual activity.1 The
reference period was thus open-ended but it was some period considerably
longer than, for instance, the week preceding the date of enumeration.'
Given these two criteria for distinguishing the gainfully occupied-
occupation as a population characteristic and customary or habitual
activity— certain groups will be excluded from the total count of gainful
workers. Thus, persons seeking jobs for the first time have no occupation
and hence would not be considered gainful workers. (See above, for specific
reference to young persons, 14 to 24.) Further, some individuals whose
work is part-time, intermittent or casual might not be included since they
would not satisfy the customary or habitual activity criterion. On the other
hand, a person not currently engaged in gainful employment (or in seeking
such employment) might well be included among the gainfully occupied
on the basis of a prior occupational attachment of long duration. (Cf.
footnote3: the special reference to the unemployed in the 1931 and 1941
Censuses.) What is important to note here is that the concept of the
gainfully occupied is not sufficiently precise to ensure that certain
"marginal" groups will necessarily be consistently enumerated, either
Although, as has been pointed out, the definition of the gainfully occupied did not in-
clude any explicit reference to activity, there seems little doubt that those in charge of the
1931 and 1941 Census operations in DBS were aware of the relevance of activity and, to some
extent, of the distinction between customary and current activity. This has been made
clear to us in discussions with Mr. AJ-i.LeNeveu (formerly Chief of the Current Population
Estimates, Analysis and Citizenship Section of the Census Division) who has kindly
permitted us to read some of hlB correspondence with the staff of the Works Progress
Administration in Washington during the 1930s. See also 1936 Census of the Prairie
Provinces, Table 14, which distinguishes between usual occupation and occupation
followed on the census date. None the less, the core of the gainfully occupied concept
was occupational attachment and even the distinction between "current" and "customary"
was couched in terms of occupation and not activity.
In order to provide more comprehensive information on unemployment, in both the 1931
and 1941 Censuses, a question on activity on the census day was included. It is evident that
the gainfully occupied concept per se is not appropriate to the measurement of unemployment.
The question on unemployment was directed to wage earners only: "If a wage earner
(employee), were you at work on Monday, June 1(2), 1931(1941)?". It was followed up:
"It not, why not?". But possible answers to "why not?", such as "no job", "layoff",
"holiday", "Illness", "accident", "strike or lockout" and "other", made It clear that
unemployment was viewed in the same way aB occupation, i.e., as a characteristic of the
person. The view that unemployment might be considered an activity— the act of testing the
job market by looking for work— nowhere entered the conceptual framework.
HISTORICAL ESTIMATES OF CANADIAN LABOUR FORCE
from census to census, or by different enumerators in any given census.
Because occupation is not. simply a population characteristic and because
customary activity is based on an unspecified and open-ended reference
period, the boundary separating the gainfully occupied from the remainder
of the adult population cannot be clearly drawn.
Finally, the gainfully occupied concept tends to be associated with
a particular view of labour supply. In this view the total labour supply of
the economy is more a stable pool or stock of individuals growing pari
passu with the adult population rather than expanding or contracting in
response to changes in the economic and social environment.1 The notion
of a changing labour supply comes to mind more naturally in the context
of a current and continuing measure of the economically active population
and it is not surprising that it evolved in a more explicit form as a con-
sequence of the adoption of recurring labour force surveys. If the econom-
ically active population is measured only once every ten years and the
measure is derived in conjunction with a total population count and by
means of a classification criterion based primarily on a population
characteristic— one among many other characteristics of the adult popu-
lation—then the emphasis on a stable pool or stock of labour is a likely
one. But the limitations of the "fixed-stock" viewpoint are sharply exposed
in a period of rapid social or economic transformation, for example during a
war or a severe economic crisis. The need for manpower statistics to pro-
vide economic intelligence for government policy purposes stimulated the
*If the economically active population is regarded as a stable pool of labour, then
employment and unemployment must always move in opposite directions- It is of interestto
note in this regard that the 1931 Census Monograph on Unemployment (contained in Cen-
sus Vol. XIII) was a remarkably perceptive document. Thus, the authors observe that in
Canada, during the 1920s, immigration and emigration movements affected the unemployment
total and remark further: "This, of course, introduces a widely different concept of
unemployment from that generally accepted, viz., that unemployment is merely the opposite
of employment. Unemployment only partly declined with increasing employment. [As noticed],
it also increased with increasing numbers of wage earners and decreased with decreasing
numbers of wage earners. Immigration was no doubt accompanied by other inward movements
into the ranks of wage earners— from farms, small owned establishments and from school;
emigration was accompanied by return to these sources, so total immigration and emigration
were only symptoms of more general movements. " (p. 15) Compare this statement, with its
Insight into the changing supply of labour related to changing economic conditions, with
the following view expressed by the National Industrial Conference Board In 1938: "The
labor force [sic], viewed as a reservoir of potential workers having gainful occupations,
must of necessity have an Inertia with respect to its size and growth. That is to say,
the number of available persons on call plus the number engaged in remunerative pursuits
does not fluctuate with business swings. Each year there is an outflow of workers from
the force through emigration, death, retirement, physical disability and the like; but there
is also an Inflow through immigration, increased age of young people, termination of edu-
cation, increasing remunerative occupations for women and so forth. Underlying these
flows in and out of the labor force are such basic factors as a changed standard of
living, increased mechanization, population, age composition and growth". (Leonard
Kuvin, Conference Board Bulletin, Vol. XII, No.8. July 30, 1938: cited in Gertrude
Bancroft, The American Labor Force, Census Monograph Series, 1958, p. 185.)
THE LABOUR FORCE
adoption of the continuing sample survey technique and the labour force
concept in the United States during the Great Depression of the 1930s.
In Canada, the Labour Force Survey was initiated in 1945, the last year of
the Second World War.
THE LABOUR FORCE
The chief (though not only) classification criterion of the labour
force concept is current activity. Unlike the occupation question in the
gainful worker scheme, the focus of the labour force schedule is not a
population characteristic but an activity- the individual's activity with
respect to the labour market during a specific reference period, namely the
week preceding the week of enumeration. In order to point up the differences
between the gainful worker and the labour force concepts, it is useful to
review here the definition of the labour force used in the 1951 Census of
Canada (Vol. IV).
According to the 1951 Census, the civilian labour force is composed
of that portion of the civilian non-institutional population 14 years of age
and over who, during the week ending June 2, 1951, worked for pay or
profit; had jobs but did not work; or did not have jobs and were seeking
work. Each category was thus defined: —
(a) Persons with jobs and at work: Those who did any work (during
the reference week) for pay or profit or who did unpaid work
which contributed to the running of a family farm or business
operated by a member of the household.
(b) Persons with jobs but not at work: Those who had jobs but did
not work because of illness, bad weather, vacation, industrial
dispute or temporary layoff with instructions to return within
30 days of the time of being laid off.
(c) Persons without jobs and looking for work: Those who, during the
reference week, were without jobs and seeking work. This
category also includes those who would have looked for work
except that they were temporarily ill, were on indefinite or
prolonged layoff, or believed that no work was available.
The merit of the labour force concept is that one may reasonably
assume it is possible to record an individual's activity, precisely defined,
in an objective, consistent and accurate fashion. The main object of the
labour force enumeration is to classify the adult population into three
groups: the employed [categories (a) and (b) above], the unemployed
[category (c)], and the non-labour force (the remainder of the adult
population). It should be noted that the labour force itself is defined as
the sum of the employed and the unemployed; the remainder of the adult
HISTORICAL ESTIMATES OF CANADIAN LABOUR FORCE
population is not in the labour force. Thus the economically active are
distinguished within the total population and the chief distinguishing
criterion is current activity, specifically defined.
Although current activity is the focus of the labour force concept,
it is not the only classification criterion utilized nor is it consistently
applied. The labour force definition and measurement technique were first
developed in the United States within the framework of a national policy
directed toward providing work-relief for the mass unemployment of the
Great Depression. A count of the number of jobs required for the employable
unemployed was the chief requirement of the labour force measure. Job
attachment was, therefore, another and important criterion for classifying
the adult population. In cases in which job attachment (or lack of it) and
activity clearly coincide, few problems of definition or measurement arise.
Thus persons working during the week clearly are "with jobs", i.e.,
job attachment is unequivocal and so is activity. Moreover, persons who
did not work but were actively seeking work during the week are assumed
to have no job attachment and to be engaged in the activity of seeking
work. There remain two other groups of persons to be classified:1 (a)
those who have no activity but have a "firm" job attachment and (b)
those who have no activity and no "firm" job attachment.
The original labour force definition (developed in the United States
for use in the 1940 Census of Population and in the recurring sample
surveys of the population begun in March 1940) classed persons as
employed if they had worked for one hour or more for pay or profit2 during
the week or if they had not worked because of vacation, illness, bad
weather, industrial dispute of temporary layoff. Thus group (a) above,
those who had no activity, were classed as employed on the basis of a
presumed "firm" job attachment. The decision, made later,5 to revise the
definition of the employed to exclude those on temporary layoff clearly
implied that the "degree" of job attachment of such individuals was
considered less firm than that of the others in the group. It is evident that
The possibility of an individual fitting into several work-status categories of the la-
bour force necessitated the establishment of a chain of priorities so that mutually exclusive
groups might be delineated. (In the monthly surveys, questions on the individual's primary
and secondary activity during the reference week are asked.) The chain decided upon was:
with job and at work; seeking; with job but not at work; non-labour force. Thus, for
example, *an individual who was employed but absent from work all week and looking for
work would be classified as unemployed. See Appendix B for a change in this priority
under the new (January 1967) United States definition.
The only exception was the unpaid family worker: a person who did unpaid work which
contributed to the running of a farm or a business operated by a related member of the
household.
'Effective in February 1957 in the United States, and in September 1960 in Canada.
THE LABOUR FORCE
job attachment is a less precise, i.e., more "equivocal" criterion than is
activity.
Further, as described above, the labour force definition used in
Canada classes as unemployed persons who had not worked an hour or
more during the week and who had actively1 sought work-thus satisfying
the activity criterion-p/us those who had neither worked nor sought work
but would have sought work except that they were temporarily ill, on
temporary or indefinite layoff, or believed no work was available in their
line or their community. This latter group, sometimes called the "inactive
seekers", do not satisfy the activity criterion and, moreover, have varying
degrees of job attachment, as was evidenced by the reclassification of the
temporary layoffs from the employed to the unemployed category. Herein
lies one of the major conceptual difficulties in the labour force measure.
Once the activity criterion is abandoned, job attachment must bear the
entire weight of classification as between the two main labour force
categories, the employed and the unemployed. But job attachment is not
an objectively precise criterion; the exact degree of job attachment may be
a matter of debate. Moreover, once the activity criterion is no longer
applicable and job attachment is nebulous or non-existent, there remains
no objective means of distinguishing the unemployed from the remainder of
the adult population. Group (b) referred to above— those who have no
activity and no firm job attachment— may be either non-labour force or
inactive seekers. The lack of job attachment, when it coincides with a
lack of activity, provides no guide for distinguishing the boundary between
the economically active and the remainder of the adult population. Inclusion
or exclusion of the inactive seeker thus rests, au fond, on the respondent's
subjective evaluation of labour market conditions. Thus with the labour
force definition used today in Canada (and until very recently in the
United States: see Appendix B) if the respondent volunteers the information
that he would have sought work except for certain conditions, he is classed
as unemployed and in the labour force.2 Because in such cases the labour
The meaning of the word "actively" was not explained in the definition of the labour
force. In the Canadian Labour Force Survey Enumeration Manual, however, it is described as
"making efforts to obtain a job or establish a business or professional practice, such
efforts as registering at a government employment office, meeting with prospective em-
ployers, placing or answering advertisements, writing letters of application or working
without pay to gain experience". In the 1951 Census the enumeration instructions were
identical; in the 1961 Census "working without pay to gain experience" was omitted.
2
Prior to July 1945 in the United States, the labour force schedule obtained the unem-
ployment count by asking those who were not actively seeking work, "why not?". When
this question was eliminated, the enumerator was instructed to class a person as unem-
ployed only if he volunteered the information that he would have looked for work except
for illness, prolonged layoff or the belief that none was available. The numbers of inactive
seekers picked up with the new schedule were much fewer than with the previous schedule
which asked "why not?". The Canadian survey, initiated in November 1945, has never
includedthe question "why not?".
HISTORICAL ESTIMATES OF CANADIAN LABOUR FORCE
force survey involves a reporting of attitudes and not of objective pheno-
mena, a count which is consistent as among different surveys, different
areas or different groups of individuals is much more difficult to achieve.1
While the labour force concept as described above does not provide
a completely satisfactory means of clearly and unequivocally defining the
economically active population (and, in practice, of distinguishing it, as
defined, from the remainder of the adult population), it is preferable to
the gainful worker concept because currenr activity (its chief criterion
for definition) is more susceptible to objective enumeration than is habitual
occupation viewed as a characteristic of an individual. The historical
series presented below were estimated, insofar as was possible, on the
basis of the labour force definition of the economically active.
lThus, for example, the very large difference between the 1961 Census unemployment
count and that of the monthly Labour Force Surveys closest to the census date (the Census
rate was 3.9%: the average May— June Survey estimate, 6.2%) illustrates how sensitive the
labour force concept is to variation in the quality and specific practices of enumeration.
2. Estimates of the Labour Force
by Age and Sex, 1921-196V
Although the application of the gainfully occupied and labour force
definitions will produce different counts of the economically active popu-
lation, it is evident from the foregoing discussion that these differences
will be much more marked for some groups in the population— for example,
younger workers and women— than for others, in particular, prime-age males.
For this reason it is desirable, wherever possible, to adjust separately
the gainful worker counts for specific age groups of males and females.
This method of adjustment, however, is ruled out for data prior to 1921
because of inadequate age detail in the 1901 and 1911 Census gainful
worker statistics and more stringent deficiencies in the pre-1901 data.
The present Section, then, deals with the derivation of the decennial
labour force estimates, by age and sex, for the period from 1921 to 1961.
The next Section describes the conversion of the gainful worker totals,
by sex, for 1901 and 1911 and the final Section discusses the estimates of
total labour force for 1851 to 1891.
In securing a series of comparable decennial labour force statistics
for the period 1921 to 1961, the problem is not simply one of adjusting
the gainful worker counts of the 1921, 1931 and 1941 Censuses. In 1951 and
1961 the censuses undertook to measure the labour force but the two
censuses were not identical in their approach; the labour force questions
differed sufficiently in wording and sequence2 that the resulting measures
were not entirely comparable.' Strictly speaking, then, two adjustments
are required if a consistent series is to be produced for this period: (1) the
1951 and 1961 Census labour force measures must be adjusted to secure
Cf. Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Canadian Labour Force Estimates, 1931~1945,
Reference Paper No. 23 (revised), Ottawa, 1957. This Reference Paper presents annual
estimates of the labour force by sex, from 1931 to 1945, and for both sexes combined
from 1921 to 1930. The method of adjusting the gainfully occupied census data was
somewhat different from that used here. It should' be noted, however, that adjustments
were made for both new seekers and unpaid female workers on farms.
2 See Appendix C
For a number of examples of non-comparability of 1951 and 1961 Census labour force
data see 1961 Census ot Canada, Vol. 7, Part 1, Bulletin 7.1-12, "The Canadian Labour
Force".
HISTORICAL ESTIMATES OF CANADIAN LABOUR FORCE
comparability with each other, and (2) the census gainful worker counts
for 1921, 1931 and 1941 must be converted to labour force estimates
comparable to the 1951 and 1961 statistics.
An examination of the 1951 and 1961 Census labour force data
revealed that the task involved in adjusting these two sets of statistics to
a comparable base would be difficult and time-consuming, yielding, at best,
only very approximate results. An acceptable alternative procedure, which
was adopted, was to use the Labour Force Survey sample statistics for the
week closest to the Census reference week in 1951 and 1961. l This
decision was also influenced by the fact that the monthly surveys provide
a reasonably consistent series of labour force statistics for the period
from 1945 to the present and thus these historical estimates could be
linked to a readily available source of current information.
The decision to use the survey statistics in 1951 and 1961 neces-
sitated adjusting the gainful worker counts in 1921, 1931 and 1941 to a
Survey rather than a Census basis. There seemed, moreover, to be yet
another argument in favour of this method of adjustment which is perhaps
best expressed in a quotation from the introduction to the Labour Force
Volume (Vol. IV) of the 1951 Census: "Enumeration of the whole population
for census purposes presents problems which are not encountered in
continuing sample surveys. The current labour force surveys ask relatively
few questions, mainly on one topic, and, being taken frequently, often
retain the same enumerator for several successive surveys. For these
reasons, the current survey can probe more deeply in order to bring out
marginal elements in the Labour Force. Thus [for example] , the current
survey reported more family members whose principal activity was going to
school, keeping house, etc., as having done some unpaid family work on a
farm or in a business during the week ending June 2, 1951, than were
reported in the Census." Since it is precisely the marginal elements in
the labour force which are also most likely to be omitted from a gainful
worker count, adjusting the gainfully occupied total on a Census labour
force basis would tend to understate the extent of the difference between
the gainfully occupied and the labour force measures.1
In 195 1 the Labour Force Survey reference date in June was identical to the Census
reference date (week ending June 2) but in 1961 the June reference date for the Survey
was the week ending June 17th while the Census used a "Blidlng" reference date (the
week preceding the actual visit of the enumerator) which extended over the first three
weeks in June, but which was concentrated (at leaBt for urban areas) on the first week or
two. Thus, for purposes of comparison, it was decided to use the May— June averages of
the Survey data.
Cf. Stanley Lebergott, Manpower in Economic Growth, The American Record Since
1800, New York, 1964, Chapter 9. For largely the same reasons as presented here, Lebergott
also converts his historical data to a Survey rather than a Census base (pp. 357 ff.)
10
LABOUR FORCE BY AGE AND SEX, 1921*1961
GENERAL METHODOLOGY
The general method used to adjust the gainful worker statistics
for 1921, 1931 and 1941 was first to calculate a separate "conversion
ratio" for each of a number of specified age and sex groups in the econom-
ically active population, using 1951 data, and then to multiply the gainful
worker figure for each comparable age-sex group in 1921, 1931 and 1941
by the ratio for the group.1 The conversion ratios were defined as
Survey L.F. ^ wnere Survey L.F. is the number of persons, in the age-sex
Census G.O.
group, who were enumerated in the Labour Force Survey of June 2, 1951,
plus the number in the Armed Services and an estimate of the number of
Indians on reserves with a labour force attachment.2 The term Census
G.O. refers to an estimate of the number of workers, of a given age-sex
group, who would have been enumerated in 1951 if the census of that year
had utilized the gainful worker concept. The method by which the gainfully
occupied estimates for 1951 were derived is described in what follows.3
This method involves the use of a uniform set of conversion ratios for 1921, 1931 and
1941. It is not unreasonable to assume that the proportion of various "marginal" groups
in the labour force varied over this period, not only because of long-run changes in the
industrial and occupational composition of the labour force, but also because the different
censuses were taken at different stages of the business cycle. There are, however,
no adequate data available for adjusting the conversion ratios to take account of underlying
changes in the economic and social environment. Thus, estimating different ratios for each
census would have involved making a large number of quite arbitrary assumptions based on
intuitive "guesses" and scattered pieces of inadequate information. The procedure
chosen, while admittedly rough, was considered preferable and in all probability results in
adjustment in the right direction, although not necessarily of the correct amount, at each
date.
The participation rate of Indians on reserves was assumed equal to that of the rest of
the population of the same age and sex. Unpublished data from both the 1951 and 1961
Censuses suggest much lower age- sex specific activity rates for Indians. It seems
probable, however, that the main reason for these relatively low rates was that the
censuses failed to enumerate most "inactive seekers" — a group which would be par-
ticularly important in the case of the Indian reserve population. Since the method of
adjustment involves revision to a Survey and not a Census base, it was decided to use
the higher rates for Indians. In either case, however, the effect on the overall figures is
very small.
It should be noted that Indians on reserves were excluded from census counts of the
economically active population in 1901, 1921 and 1951, but were included in 1911, 1931,
1941 and 1961. Members of the Armed Services were included in every census from 1901 to
1961. In 1941 a number of tables showed the total gainfully occupied including all persons
on Active Service, as well as the total not including persons on Active Service. Indians
on reserves and members of the Armed Services are excluded from the monthly Labour
Force Survey.
The conversion ratios may be thought of as the resultant of two separate steps,
summarized as follows:
Survey G.O. Survey L.F. Survey L.F.
Census G.O. Survey G.O. Census G.O.
The first step involves adjusting the gainfully occupied from a Census basis to a Survey
basis; the second involves adjusting the Survey-based gainfully occupied figure to the
actual Survey labour force figure.
11
HISTORICAL ESTIMATES OF CANADIAN LABOUR FORCE
THE GAINFULLY OCCUPIED IN 1951 AND THE CONVERSION RATIOS
A comparison of the gainfully occupied and labour force definitions
has shown that certain "marginal" groups in the economically active
population are likely to be omitted from a gainful worker count but should
be included in a labour force enumeration. The procedure used to estimate
the gainfully occupied total for each age-sex group in 1951 therefore con-
sisted of estimating the numbers of workers in specified marginal labour
force categories and then subtracting these estimates from the Census
labour force count. The resulting statistics are assumed to represent the
numbers of workers who would have been enumerated if the 1951 Census
had used the gainful worker rather than the labour force definition of the
economically active population.
A careful consideration of the Census and Survey data in the light
of the conceptual analysis presented above suggested that four marginal
groups were likely to be excluded in significant numbers from a gainful
worker count and should therefore be allowed for in this adjustment proce-
dure:
(1) Male and female "new seekers": Persons who had never worked and
were looking for their first jobs. As noted earlier, such persons were
specifically excluded from gainful worker counts.
(2) Students: Males1 in the age group 14-24 whose primary activity during
the reference week was attending school but who also worked for an
hour or more during that week. The gainful worker count excluded all
full-time students even if they worked after school or on weekends.
(3) Female unpaid family workers in agriculture: The gainful worker
concept did specifically include women who, in addition to their
household activity, were working regularly at outdoor farm work in a
"no pay" capacity. However, the emphasis on regular farm work of a
specific type would result in the enumeration of a lesser number of
female unpaid family workers on farms under a gainful worker rather
than a labour force definition.2
Females were excluded from this adjustment group because during the historical pe-
riod under consideration it is highly unlikely that many young girls, in regular school attend-
ance, also worked at part-time or weekend jobs. The kinds of jobs which today are popular
with teen-age schoolgirls or young university women — baby-sitting, part-time sales or
clerical jobs, etc.— were not widely available during this period, nor was it considered,
as it clearly is today, socially "proper" for such young women to work in paid employment.
(Certainly, in the period before 1941, a very high proportion of women in the age group
14—24 who were still full-time students would have come from middle-class families.)
2
The Labour Force Survey of June 1946, conducted at the same time as the Census of
the Prairie Provinces, recorded a female agricultural labour force of 103,000 as compared
with a census gainful worker total of 8,000.
12
GAINFULLY OCCUPIED AND THE CONVERSION RATIOS
(4) Females who worked on a part-time basis in non-agricultural industry:
These women were likely to have been excluded wholly or in very large
degree from a gainful worker count because most have no firm occu-
pational attachment or stable and regular labour force commitment.
The gainful worker count, as has been emphasized, is centred on
occupational attachment and on habitual or regular activity.
A fifth group, which was also considered (and whose omission from
the conversion procedure requires some explanation) was that of the
recently retired male. As was noted above, in the pre- 1951 censuses the
enumerators were instructed not to report occupations for persons who,
because of old age or physical disability, were no longer following a
gainful occupation. But the census schedule asked only for the individual's
occupation and it is not unlikely that some enumerators failed to probe
sufficiently to determine whether the person had in fact recently retired
and was no longer pursuing a gainful occupation at the time of the census.1
The number of females of this type is unlikely to have been large, but it
is probable that the gainful worker count somewhat overstated the numbers
of older males. On the other hand, the 1951 Census recorded 8,492 males
"retired or voluntarily idle", whose secondary activity during the census
week was working. No doubt some of these men, doing odd jobs or working
part-time, would not have been "picked up" in a gainful worker count and
for this reason the gainfully occupied measure in some degree understated
the numbers of older male workers. In the absence of the information
necessary to estimate either the numbers of older males incorrectly included
or the numbers wrongfully excluded in the gainful worker figures the
assumption was made that these two roughly balanced each other and
therefore no adjustment was made for this particular group.
The numbers of persons in each of the four selected "marginal"
categories— the "adjustment groups"— are shown in Table 1. A detailed
description of their estimation is provided in Appendix A. It will be noted
from Table 1 that the adjustment groups are considerably larger for females
than males. Indeed, the adjustment group for prime-age males (35—64 years)
is negligible.
The derivation of the ratios to be used in converting the gainful
worker data from the pre-1951 censuses is shown in Table 2. The "total
Cf. United States Bureau of Census, Estimates of Labour Force, Employment and
Unemployment in the United States, 1940 end 1930, Washington, 1944, p. 11: "The group
enumerated as gainful workers in the 1930 Census included a considerable number of persons
who had recently retired or become disabled or who, for other reasons, had permanently
withdrawn from the labor force." For Canada, however, see Instructions to Commissioners
and Enumerators regarding the retired in 1931 (p. 35) and 1941 (p. 48). The likelihood of
overstatement from this source in these years would not be large.
13
HISTORICAL ESTIMATES OF CANADIAN LABOUR FORCE
adjustment" for each age-sex group in 1951 (column 2) was subtracted
from the relevant 1951 Census labour force total (column 1) to yield the
1951 gainfully occupied estimate (column 3). The June 1951 Labour Force
Survey estimates (column 4) were then expressed as ratios to the gainful
worker counts to yield- the conversion ratios (column 5). Again, it will
be noted that the adjustments implied by these ratios are in general much
smaller for males than females— less than one percentage point overall
for males as compared with over 12 per cent for females. For male teen-
agers, however, the adjustment was almost 12 per cent, although even
here it was exceeded by an adjustment of more than 22 percent for teen-age
girls.
The last step in estimating the historical series of labour force
statistics was the application of the conversion ratios to the census
gainful worker counts for 1921, 1931 and 1941 to provide the decennial
estimates of the labour force, by age and sex, shown in Tables 3-5.
It should be noted that, wherever necessary, all estimates have been
adjusted to include residents of the Yukon and Northwest Territories,
members of the Armed Services and Indians living on reserves. (In the
case of the Yukon and Northwest Territories, a proportionate adjustment
was made, based on population; in the other two cases, use was made of
available specific census data.) All estimates for census dates before 1951
exclude Newfoundland. For 1951 and 1961, estimates are provided both
with and without Newfoundland in order to facilitate comparisons with the
earlier dates.
Finally, although an analysis of trends in labour force participation
is beyond the scope of the present study (this and related matters are
treated in separate studies in this Series) some implications of the revised
estimates, relevant to such analysis, are worthy of mention. Two of the
most important developments in labour force activity which occurred
during this period were the decline in participation of teen-age males
(largely as a consequence of extended education) and the rise in partici-
pation of women, especially middle-aged and older married women. However,
as may be seen in Tables 3-5, the participation rates based on gainful
worker statistics are considerably lower than those based on labour force
estimates for teen-age males and also for females of all ages. Thus an
analysis of trends based on the unrevised data (i.e., the census gainful
worker counts for 1921, 1931 and 1941) would tend to understate the
decline in teen-age male labour force activity over the forty-year period
between 1921 and 1961 and, although to a less serious degree, to overstate
the rise in female labour force activity over the same period. The effect of
revision on the overall activity rate, however, is minor.
14
3. Estimates of the Labour Force
by Sex, 1901 and 1911
The absence of sufficient age detail for the gainfully occupied
population in the 1901 and 1911 Censuses precluded the use of the adjust-
ment ratios described in the foregoing discussion. The best that could be
done was to estimate, from the census gainful worker counts for males and
females, the total labour force, by sex, in 1901 and 1911. This was done
separately for each sex by reweighting the 1921 participation rates accord-
ing to the population age distributions in 1901 and 1911 and using the
overall ratios of reweighted labour force rates to reweighted gainfully
occupied rates as correction factors to adjust the actual gainfully occupied
figures derived from the censuses of these two years.
As may be seen, this method adjusts for the change in age compo-
sition of the male and female population in 1901 and 1911 but otherwise
assumes that the relationship between the labour force and the gainfully
occupied in each of those years was the same as that in 1921 (and, hence,
in 1951). This method of adjustment, then, is consistent with that utilized
in the derivation of the estimates for 1921, 1931 and 1941.
The labour force estimates for 1901 and 1911 are presented in Table
10, together with two sets (gainful worker and labour force) of participation
rates. Again it may be seen that the participation rates based on unrevised
(gainful worker) data are lower than the labour force rates, more so for
females than for males.
15
4. Estimates of the Total
Labour Force, 1851-1891
Estimates of the total labour force have also been made for the
period 1851-91 (Table 11). For 1881 and 1891 the estimates are based on
actual census counts of the gainfully occupied. The 1891 count was
adjusted by applying the 1901 ratio of labour force to gainfully occupied
separately for each sex and combining the results. The 1881 count was
then adjusted on the basis of the 1891 ratio for both sexes combined.
The estimates for the earlier dates were obtained by a different
method, there being no acceptable gainfully occupied totals to work with
for the period before 1881. (The actual gainfully occupied counts from the
1871 Census were not used because of incompleteness of coverage and
doubts as to their accuracy.) Ratios of labour force to population for
individual age-sex groups were constructed on the basis of data for 1921,
the earliest date for which the necessary age-sex detail was available.
These ratios were applied to the actual census population figures in
each age-sex group and the results summed over all groups. In this way,
a preliminary labour force series was constructed for each census year in
the period 1851-81. This series was then used as an index to "project
backwards" the 1881 "benchmark" total obtained previously to 1871,
186 land 1851.
17
Tables I-II
19
HISTORICAL ESTIMATES OF CANADIAN LABOUR FORCE
Table 1 - Adjustment Groups for Use in Estimating 1951 Gainfully
Occupied by Age and Sex
NOTE.— New seekers, students and female unpaid family workers in agriculture are based
« «■-« -J ..!.••_< 1 ,n.r-. *"• -„e.,1H rin*n 171,*. ...a <- f nr tarn olo noff.tlmil WOfkefS in nOIl-
NOTE.— New seekers, students and female unpaid tamiiy workers in agricum.
published or unpublished 1951 Census data. Figures for female part-time worl
■icultural industry are based on published and unpublished 1951 Census and J
bour Force Survey data. Residents of the Yukon and Northwest Territories are
Labour Force Survey d
throughout
- j'une 195 1
are excluded
Sex and age
group
New
seekers
Students
whose
secondary
activity
during
census
week was
working
Female
unpaid
family
workers in
agriculture
Female
part-time
workers
in non-
agricultural
industry
Total
adjust-
ment
Men-
14-19
20-24
No.
7,810
906
No.
13,528
2,635
912
66
No.
No.
No.
21,338
3,541
25-34
912
35-64
66
65 and over
Totals, 14 and over .
8,716
17,141
25,857
Women—
14-19
20-24
3,976
456
-
2,334
4,181
7,861
340
27,750
18,400
17,246
31,148
3,769
31,726
21,190
25-34
21,427
35-64
65 and over
39,009
4,109
Totals, 14 and over .
4,432
-
14,716
98,313
117,461
Both Sexes-
Totals, 14 and over .
13,148
17,141
14,716
98,313
143,318
20
Table 2 - Calculation of Conversion Ratios, by Age and Sexf Based
on 1951 Data
NOTE.— Total adjustment figures are reproduced from the last column of Table 1. Other
figures are based on published and unpublished 1951 Census and June 1951 Labour Force
Survey data. Residents of the Yukon and Northwest Territories are excluded; members of the
Armed Services and Indians living on reserves are included.
Sex and age
group
Labour
force
based
on
Census
(1)
Total
adjust-
ment
(2)
Estimate of
gainfully
occupied
(3)=(l)-(2)
Labour
force
based on
Labour
Force
Survey
(4)
Conversion
ratio
(5)=(4)-(3)
Men-
14-19
20-24
'000
322
499
1,031
2.092
213
'000
21
4
1
"000
301
495
1,030
2,092
213
'000
336
496
1,030
2,085
209
1.116
1.002
25-34
1.000
35-64
0.997
65 and over
0.981
Totals, 14 and over .
4,157
26
4,131
4,156
1.006
Women—
14-19
20-24
203
260
270
416
27
32
21
21
39
4
171
239
249
377
23
209
267
278
412
23
1.222
1.117
25-34
1.116
35-64
1*93
65 and over
1.000
Totals, 14 and over .
1,176
117
1.059
1,189
1.123
Both Sexes-
Totals, 14 and over .
5,333
143
5,190
5,345
1.030
21
HISTORICAL ESTIMATES OF CANADIAN LABOUR FORCE
Table 3 - Population, Gainfully Occupied and Labour Force, by Age
and Sex, 1921 (excluding Newfoundland)
NOTE.— Wherever necessary, all figures have been adjusted to include residents of the
Yukon and Northwest Territories, Indians living on reserves, and members of the Armed
Services, and to exclude inmates of institutions.
Sex and age
group
Population
Gainfully
occupied
Labour
force
Participation rate
Gainfully
Labour
occupied
force
'000
•ooo
'000
%
%
Men-
10-13
371
488
8
299
8
334
2-2
61.3
2.2
14-19
68.4
20-24
349
328
329
94.0
94.3
25-34
687
1,323
208
673
1,286
127
673
1.282
124
98.0
97.2
61-1
98-0
35-64
96.9
65 and over
59-6
Totals, 10 and over
3,426
2.721
2.750
79-4
80.3
Totals, 14 and over
3,055
2.713
2.742
88.8
89.8
Women—
10-13
364
483
359
647
1,133
198
1
117
128
113
124
13
1
143
143
126
136
13
0.3
24.2
35.7
17-5
10.9
6.6
0.3
14-19
29-6
20-24
39.8
25-34
19.5
35-64
12.0
6.6
Totals', 10 and over
3,184
496
562
15.6
17.7
Totals, 14 and over
2.820
495
561
17-6
19.9
Both Sexes-
Totals, 10 and over
6.610
3,217
3,312
48.7
50-1
Totals, 14 and over
5,875
3,208
3,303
54-6
56-2
22
Table 4 - Population, Gainfully Occupied and Labour Force, by Age
and Sex, 1931 (excluding Newfoundland)
NOTE.— Wherever necessary, all figures have been adjusted to include residents of the
Yukon and Northwest Territories, Indians living on reserves, and members of the Armed
Services, and to exclude inmates of institutions.
Sex and age
group
Population
Gainfully
occupied
Labour
force
Participation rate
Gainfully
occupied
Labour
force
Men-
10-13
"000
431
627
459
771
1,633
285
'000
5
323
430
760
1,584
164
•ooo
5
360
431
760
1,579
161
%
1.2
51.5
93.7
98-6
97-0
57.5
%
1.2
14-19
57-4
20-24
93-9
25-34
98.6
35-64
96.7
65 and over
56.5
Totals, 10 and over
Totals, 14 and over
4,206
3,775
3.266
3,261
3,296
3,291
77.6
86.4
78.4
87.2
Women-
10-13
423
616
445
713
1,406
272
1
133
189
156
170
17
1
163
211
174
186
17
0-2
21-6
42-5
21.9
12.1
6.2
0.2
14-19
26.5
20-24
47.4
25-34
24.4
35-64
13.2
6.2
Totals, 10 and over
Totals, 14 and over
3,875
3,452
666
665
752
751
17-2
19-3
19.4
21-8
Both Sexes-
Totals, 10 and over
Totals, 14 and over
8,081
7,227
3,932
3,926
4,048
4,042
48.7
54-3
50.1
55.9
23
HISTORICAL ESTIMATES OF CANADIAN LABOUR FORCE
Table 5 - Population, Gainfully Occupied and Labour Force, by Age
and Sex, 1941 (excluding Newfoundland)
NOTE. -Wherever necessary, all figures have been adjusted to include residents of the
Yukon and Northwest Territories, Indians living on reserves, and members of the Armed
Services, and to exclude inmates of institutions.
Sex and age
group
Population
Gainfully
occupied
Labour
force
Participation rate
Gainfully
occupied
Labour
force
Men-
14-19
'000
672
513
911
1,864
378
'000
329
474
899
1,796
185
•000
367
475
899
1,791
181
%
49.0
92-4
98-7
96-4
48.9
%
54-6
20-24
92-6
25-34
98.7
35-64
96-1
47-9
Totals, 14 and over .
4,338
3,683
3,713
84-9
85.6
Women-
14-19
661
512
886
1,674
364
145
215
221
232
21
177
240
247
254
21
21.9
42-0
24-9
13.9
5.8
26-8
20-24
46-9
25-34
27.9
35-64
15-2
5-8
Totals, 14 and over .
. 4,097
834
939
20.4
22.9
Both Sexes-
Totals, 14 and over .
8,435
4,517
4,652
53-6
. 55-2
24
Table 6 - Population and Labour Force, by Age and Sex, 1951
(excluding Newfoundland)
NOTE.— Wherever necessary; all figures have been adjusted to include residents of the
Yukon and Northwest Territories, Indians living on reserves, and members of the Armed
Services, and to exclude inmates of institutions.
Sex and age
group
Population
Labour
force
Labour
force
participation
rate
Men-
14-19
'000
613
517
1,028
2,155
917
702
536
522
'000
329
487
1,010
2,047
905
679
463
206
%
53-7
20-24
94.2
25-34
98-2
35-64
95.O
35-44
98.7
45-54
96.7
55-64 '.
36.4
65 and over
39-5
Totals, 14 and over
4,835
4,079
84.4 .
Women—
14-19
611
535
1,080
2,059
895
660
504
507
206
261
274
407
200
139
68
23
33.7
20-24
48. 8
25-34
25.4
35-64
19.8
35-44
22-3
45-54
21.1
13.5
55-64
65 and over
4.5
Totals, 14 and over
4,792
1,171
24.4
Both Sexes-
Totals, 14 and over
9,627
5,250
54-5
25
HISTORICAL ESTIMATES OF CANADIAN LABOUR FORCE
Table 7 - Population and Labour Force, by Age and Sex, 1961
(excluding Newfoundland)
NOTE.— Wherever necessary, all figures have been adjusted to include residents of the
Yukon and Northwest Territories, Indians living on reserves, and members of the Armed
Services, and to exclude inmates of institutions.
Sex and age
group
Population
Labour
force
Labour
force
participation
rate
Men-
14-19
14
'000
869
167
304
398
567
1,221
2,716
1,155
929
632
633
229
404
'000
353
16
77
260
535
1,202
2.588
1,135
898
555
194
120
74
%
40.6
9-6
15-16
25-3
17-19
20-24
25-34
65.3
94-4
98>4
35-64
95-3
35-44
98.3
45-54
55-64
96.7
87.8
65 and over
30.6
70 and over
52.4
18.3
6,006
4,872
81-1
Women—
14-19
837
160
291
386
580
1,192
2,682
1,170
896
616
671
238
433
265
8
48
209
294
348
801
365
294
142
41
24
17
31.7
14
15-16
5.0
16.5
17-19
54.1
20-24
25-34
50-7
29-2
35-64
29.9
45-54
31.2
32-8
55-64
65 and over
23.1
6.1
65-69
10-1
3.9
5,962
1,749
29.3
Both Sexes-
11,968
6,621
55-3
26
Table 8 - Population and Labour Force, by Age and Sex, 1951
(including Newfoundland)
NOTE.— Wherever necessary, all figures have been adjusted to include residents of the
Yukon and Northwest Territories, Indians living on reserves, and members' of the Armed
Services, and to exclude inmates of institutions.
Sex and age
group
Population
Labour
force
Labour
force
participation
rate
Men-
14-19
20-24
25-34
35-64
35-44
45-54
55-64
65 and over
Totals, 14 and over
Women—
14-19
20-24
25-34
35-64
35-44
45-54
55-64
65 and over
Totals, 14 and over
Both Sexes-
Totals, 14 and over
'000
632
530
1,054
2,202
939
717
546
534
4,952
629
549
1,104
2,101
914
673
514
518
4.901
'000
338
498
1,034
2,088
925
692
471
209
4,167
210
266
277
412
202
141
69
23
1,188
53.5
94.0
98.1
94.8
98.5
96.5
86.3
39.1
84.1
33-4
48.5
25.1
19.6
22.1
21.0
13.4
4.4
24.2
9,853
5,355
54.3
27
HISTORICAL ESTIMATES OF CANADIAN LABOUR FORCE
Table 9 - Population and Labour Force, by Age and Sex, 1961
(including Newfoundland)
NOTE.— Wherever necessary, all figures have been adjusted to include residents of the
Yukon and Northwest Territories, Indians living on reserves, and members of the Armed
Services, and to exclude inmates of institutions.
Sex and age
group
Population
Labour
force
Labour
force
participation
rate
Men-
14-19
14
15-16
17-19
20-24
25-34
35-64
35-44
45-54
55-64 .
65 and over
65-69
70 and over
Totals, 14 and over
Women—
14-19
14
15-16
17-19
20-24
25-34
35-64
35-44
45-54
55-64
65 and over ,
65-69
70 and over
Totals, 14 and over
Both Sexes-
Totals, 14 and over
'000
896
172
314
410
582
1,248
2,774
1,181
949
644
647
234
413
6,147
865
165
301
399
595
1,218
2,735
1,193
914
628
684
243
441
6,097
'000
363
16
79
268
548
1,223
2,636
1,157
915
564
197
122
75
4,967
274
8
50
216
300
352
807
367
297
143
41
24
17
1,774
%
40.5
9.3
25-2
65.4
94.2
98.0
95.0
98.0
96.4
87.6
30.4
52.1
18.2
80.8
31.7
4.8
16.6
54.1
50.4
28.9
29.5
30.8
32.5
22.8
6.0
9.9
3.9
29.1
12,244
6.741
55.1
28
Table 10 - Population, Gainfully Occupied and Labour Force, by Sex,
1901 and 1911 (excluding Newfoundland)
NOTE.— Wherever necessary, all figures have been adjusted to include residents of the
Yukon and Northwest Territories, Indians living on reserves, and members of the Armed
Services, and to exclude inmates of institutions.
Population
Gainfully
occupied
Labour
force
Participation rate
Year and sex
Gainfully
occupied
Lab our
force
Persons 10 years of age
and over—
Both sexes . . .
1911 Men
'000
2,066
1,957
4,023
2,913
2,521
5,434
1,829
1,729
3,558
2,629
2,245
4,874
'000
1,598
244
1,842
2,366
366
2,732
1,586
242
1,828
2,357
365
2,722
'000
1,618
281
1,899
2,390
419
2,809
1,606
279
1,885
2,381
418
2,799
%
77-3
12.5
45.8
81.2
14.5
50.3
86.7
14-0
51.4
89.7
16-3
55.8
%
78.3
14.4
47.2
82.0
Both sexes . . .
Persons 14 years of age
and over-
1901 Men
16-6
51.7
87.8
Both sexes . . .
1911 Men
16.1
53.0
90.6
Both sexes . . .
18.6
57.4
Table 11 - Total Labour Force, 1851 - 1961
(excluding Newfoundland)
NOTE.— Implicitly or explicitly, all figures have been adjusted (wherever necessary) to
include residents of the Yukon and Northwest Territories, Indians living on reserves, and
members of the Armed Services.
Year
Thousands
of persons
Year
Thousands
of persons
1851
762
1,053
1,201
1,474
1,732
1,899
1911
2,809
3,312
4,048
4,652
5,250
6,621
1861
1921
1871
1931
1941
1881
1891
1951
1901
1961
29
Appendices A-D
31
HISTORICAL ESTIMATES OF CANADIAN LABOUR FORCE
A. ESTIMATION OF ADJUSTMENT GROUPS
While general reference is made in Table 1 to the sources of informa-
tion for the estimates of the adjustment groups, a further note of explana-
tion on the method of estimation is required. Each of the four "marginal"
groups are treated separately.
(1) New Seekers: The 1951 Census recorded the numbers of "persons who
have never worked and were seeking work", classified by age and sex.
Since this information was not available from the June 1951 Labour
Force Survey, it was necessary to use the census data but only for
persons 14-24 years of age. The very small numbers of "new seekers"
aged 25 and over were omitted from the estimates.
(2) Male Students: The 1951 Census recorded 17,141 males whose principal
activity for the week ending June 2, 1951 was "going to school" but
whose secondary activity during that week was "working". (This
information was not available from Survey tabulations.) The age dis-
tribution of these students was secured from unpublished data provided
by the Census Division of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics.
(3) Female Unpaid Family Workers in Agriculture: As noted previously,
in order to adjust a labour force total to a gainful worker count, it is
necessary to subtract some, but not all, of the female unpaid family
workers from the total female agricultural labour force. The problem of
estimating this adjustment group, then, consists of determining what
proportion of the female agricultural labour force should be excluded in
each of the age categories shown in Table 1.
The June 1951 Labour Force Survey recorded a total of 80,000 female
"no pays" in agriculture; no age detail was published nor is it
available from unpublished data. In order to utilize this Survey figure
for our purposes, it would have been necessary, therefore, first to
estimate the age distribution of these persons and then to estimate the
proportion, within each age category, who would have been missed in a
gainful worker count. Rather than follow this procedure, it was decided
instead to use the 1951 Census data on female unpaid family workers in
agriculture. The Census recorded 18,166 such females,1 considerably
'An unpublished tabulation from the 1951 Census showed 27,325 women, in agricul-
tural occupations, whose primary activity was keeping house, going to school, retired, etc.,
but whose secondary activity was "working". Of these, 11,907 were classified as unpaid
family workers. It might be argued that this latter figure best represents the group of women
who would be excluded from a gainful worker count. But taking into consideration the very
strong evidence suggesting that the 1951 Census failed, by a wide margin, to enumerate all
the female unpaid family workers on farms (see Study on Occupations in this series),
it was felt that a figure of approximately 12,000 workers was too low and the adjustment
was therefore based on the total number of female "no pays" in agriculture, excluding the
14_19 year olds for reasons explained in the text.
32
APPENDIX A
fewer than the comparable Labour Force Survey figure. The census
figure, therefore, ■ lies between the two extreme estimates of female
"no pays"-that of the gainfully occupied, at the lower end, and the
Labour Force Survey, at the upper. For this reason, and because age
detail was provided, the census data were used for adjustment purposes
for females aged 20 and over. No adjustment was made for women of
14—19 because observation of earlier censuses revealed that, in
relative terms, considerably more female unpaid family farm workers
in this age group were recorded than in the 1951 Census.1 For this
age group, then, the census labour force count was assumed to be
approximately identical to that which would have been obtained with a
gainfully occupied criterion.
(4) Female Part-Time Workers in Non-Agricultural Industry: Women who
work on an intermittent or part-time basis would probably be counted
as housewives in a gainful worker enumeration, although in a labour
force survey they should, if they worked even for a few hours or sought
work during the week, be recorded as members of the current labour
force. No direct information on this category of workers was available
from either the 1951 Census or the June Survey. The estimates shown
in the fourth column of Table 1 were derived from a number of different
Census and Survey sources in the following manner.
The 1951 Census provided an (unpublished) figure for the total number
of females in the non-agricultural labour force who worked one to 34 hours
during the census reference week— 119,748 women. This figure represents
the part-time female work force in non-agricultural industries, i.e., women
who actually worked less than 35 hours during the reference week, but it
is larger than the "voluntary" part-time work force, i.e., women who
usually work less than 35 hours per week. It was the voluntary part-time
work force which was considered more appropriate for adjustment purposes.
Thus a ratio of the voluntary to the actual part-time female work force
(in non-agricultural industries) was estimated from (unpublished) Survey
data,2 and this ratio was used to "deflate" the Census estimate (referred
The 1951 Census recorded 3,827 teen-age girls in the unpaid family worker category
in agriculture. If, for example, the 1941 Census ratio of female "no pays" to female "paid"
employment in agriculture (i.e., total female employment in agriculture minus "no pays")
is applied to the 1951 Census paid-employment figure, the resulting number is 4,561,
which is almost 207« higher than the number of female teen-age unpaid family workers on
farms actually recorded.
2
Because the requisite data on the voluntary and actual part-time labour force were not
available from either the 1951 Census or the June Survey, there was no alternative
except to use (unpublished) statistics from Labour Force Surveys subsequent to 1951.
An average ratio was calculated based on May-June estimates for a number of selected
postwar years.
33
HISTORICAL ESTIMATES OF CANADIAN LABOUR FORCE
to above) from 119,748 to 98,313 females (fourth column of Table 1). This
total was then distributed by age in accordance with the age distribution of
female wage earners who reported earnings of less than $500 in the 1951
Census.
34
APPENDIX B
B. THE REVISED UNITED STATES LABOUR FORCE DEFINITION
In January 1967 the United States Department of Labor introduced
revised definitions of employment and unemployment which are intended to
"clear up several ambiguities and uncertainties in the [concept]" (News
Release, U.S. Department of Labor, November 22, 1966). The changes
which centred on the definition of the unemployed and, in particular, the
treatment of the "inactive seekers", were in line with the basic recom-
mendations of the President's Committee to Appraise Employment and
Unemployment Statistics (the Gordon Committee) as set out in the 1962
Report of that Committee. The definitional changes were adopted following
a three-year experimental program of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in
co-operation with the Bureau of the Census, designed to test a number of
conceptual variants. A separate experimental sample was utilized for this
purpose.
The principal changes in definition relevant to this present discussion
were:
(1) "To be counted as unemployed a person must have engaged in some
specific job-seeking activity (going to the Employment Service, applying
to an employer, answering a want-ad. etc.) within the past four weeks.
(An exception is made for persons waiting to start a new job in thirty
days or waiting to be recalled from layoff.)
(2) "To be counted as unemployed, an individual must be currently
available for work. In the past, the test of current availability was not
applied. A high-school or college student, for example, who began to
look for summer work in April was counted as unemployed in that month
even though he didn't desire to work until the beginning of vacation in
June.
(3) "Persons will be classified as employed, even though they were absent
from their jobs in the survey week and looking for other jobs. Up to now
persons absent from their jobs because of strikes, bad weather, etc.,
who were looking for other jobs were classified as unemployed."
The first of these changes has the effect of extending the "activity"
criterion to cover a group which, as we have seen, was formerly exempt
from its application— the "inactive seekers". It should be noted, however,
that the definition of "current" has also been changed; the reference
period of one week, which applies to all other categories of the labour
force, is extended to four weeks in the case of the "inactive seekers".
The second change introduces a new criterion into the labour force
definition— "current availability for work". It is impossible, in the absence
of detailed information about the experimental procedure and results, to
judge whether this new criterion enhances the operational feasibility of the
35
HISTORICAL ESTIMATES OF CANADIAN LABOUR FORCE
unemployment definition. It does, however, as Commissioner of Labor
Statistics Arthur Ross has stated, clarify the definition in the sense of
making it "more consistent with public understanding of the term". It is
important to note the effect of this change is that the criterion of "current
availability" supersedes that of "current activity" in determining the
labour force status of certain groups in the population, in particular
students and other new entrants.
Finally, the third change— classifying as employed job-holders who
had not worked but had looked for work— is a straightforward rejection of
the activity criterion in favour of the criterion (newly resurrected) of job
attachment.
In summary, then, the new definition of the economically active
adopted in the United States in January 1967 involves both a significant
extension and a significant restriction of the "activity" criterion.
36
APPENDIX C
C. DECENNIAL CENSUS QUESTIONS, 1871-1961
Presented in this Appendix are the questions relating to economic
activity which were asked in each of the decennial censuses from 1871 to
1961. (So as to present these questions in their proper context, some of the
other questions asked are also included.) In all cases the questions are
presented more or less as they were worded, and for the 1951 and 1961
Censuses the relevant portions of the questionnaires are reproduced as
they actually appeared.
The 1871-1941 questions are based on unpublished summary material
provided by the Census Division of DBS.
1871 CENSUS OF CANADA
Numbered
in the order
of
visitation
12 3 4 5 6
Names
Sex
Age
Born
Country
in
or
last
province
12
of
months
birth
Religion
Origin
Profession,
occupation
or trade
Married
or
widowed
Married
within
last
12
months
Instruction
Going
to
school
Over 20
unable
to
read
Over 20
unable
to
write
Infirmities
Deaf
and
dumb
Blind
Unsound
mind
Date of
operation
and
remarks
37
HISTORICAL ESTIMATES OF CANADIAN LABOUR FORCE
1881 CENSUS OF CANADA
Numbered
in the order
of
visitation
Names
Sex
Age
Born
Country
within
or
last
place
12
of
months
birth
Religion
Origin
Profession,
occupation
or trade
Married
or
widowed
Instruction
Going to school
Infirmities
Deaf, dumb
Blind
Unsound mind
Dates of
operation,
remarks
38
APPENDIX C
1891 CENSUS OF CANADA
Numbered
in order of
visitation
Names
Sex
Age
Married
or
widowed
Relation
to head
of
family
Country
or
province
of birth
French
Canadian
Place
of
birth,
father
Place
of birth,
mother
Religion
Profession,
occupation
or trade
Employers
Wage
earners
Unemployed
during week
preceding
census
Number
employed
during
year
Instruction
Infirmities
Read
Write
Deaf, dumb
Blind
Unsound mind
39
HISTORICAL ESTIMATES OF CANADIAN LABOUR FORCE
1901 CENSUS OF CANADA
Numbered
in order of
visitation
Names
Sex
Colour
Relationship
to
head
Marital
status
Month
and
date
of
birth
Year
of
birth
Age
Dwelling
House
Family or
household
Country or place
of birth
(if in Canada
specify Pro-
vince or
Territory and
add "r" or "u"
for rural or
urban as the
case may be)
Year of
immigration
to Canada
Year of
natural-
ization
Racial
origin
Nation-
ality
Religion
Profession
and trade
Profession or
trade (if person
has retired from
prof, or trade
add "r" for
retired)
40
APPENDIX C
1901 CENSUS OF CANADA-concluded
Profession and trade (concl.)
Wage-earner
Own
means
Employer
Employee
Own
account
Work home or
factory (specify
by "f" for
factory and
"h" for home
or both as the
case may be)
Months
employed
at
trade
At
home
At
factory
Wage-earner (concl.)
Education and language
Infirmities
a. Deaf and
dumb
b. Blind
c. Unsound
mind
Earnings
Extra
earnings
Months
in
school
Read
Write
English
French
Mother
tongue
(if
spoken)
41
HISTORICAL ESTIMATES OF CANADIAN LABOUR FORCE
1911 CENSUS OF CANADA
Profession, occupation, trade or means of living
Chief
occupation
or
trade
Employment
other than
at chief
occupation
or trade
Employer
Employee
Working
on
own
account
Wage — earners
State where
person is
employed as
"on farm",
"in woollen
mill",
"at foundry
shop", "in
drug store",
etc.
Weeks
employed
in 1910
at chief
occupa-
tion
or trade
Weeks
employed
in 1910
at other
than chief
occupa-
tion
or trade,
if any
Hours of
working
time per
week at
chief
occupa-
tion
Hours of
working
time per
week at
other
occupa-
tion,
if any
Total
earnings
in 1910
from
chief
occupa-
tion
or trade
Total
earnings
in 1910
from other
than chief
occupa-
tion
or trade,
if any
Rate
of
earnings
per
hour when
employed
by the
hour,
in cents
42
APPENDIX C
1921 CENSUS OF CANADA
Profession, occupation, and employment
Chief occupation or
trade
(Be specific, give as
definite information
as possible)
Employer "E'
Employee or
worker "W"
Working on
own account
"O.A."
(a) If "Employer" state
principal product
(b) If "Employee" state
where employed,
as "farm", "cotton mill",
"foundry", "grocery", etc.
(c) If on "own account"
state nature of work
Profession, occupation, and employment (concl.)
Total
earnings
in past
12 months
(since June 1,
1920)
If
employee,
were you out
of work
June 1, 1921?
Number of weeks
unemployed
in the past
12 months
(since June 1,
1920)
Number of
weeks
unemployed
since June 1,
1920 because
of illness
43
HISTORICAL ESTIMATES OF CANADIAN LABOUR FORCE
1931 CENSUS OF CANADA
Occupation and Industry
Occupation
Trade, profession
or particular
kind of work,
as carpenter,
weaver, sawyer,
merchant, farmer,
salesman, teacher,
etc. (Give as
definite and
precise information
as possible.)
Industry
Industry or
business in
which engaged
or employed,
as cotton mill,
brass foundry,
grocery, coal
mine, dairy farm,
public school,
business college,
etc.
Class
of
Worker
Total
earnings in
the past
twelve months
(since June 1,
1930)
Unemployment
If answer
-
to previous
question is
Of the total number
NO, why were
Total
of weeks reported
out of work in [pre-
vious] column, how
you not at
number
If an employee,
work on Monday,
of weeks
were you at
June 1, 1931?
unemployed
many were due to —
work
(For example, no
from any
No job
Monday, June 1,
job, sick.
cause in
Illness
1931?
accident, on
the last
Accident
holidays,
12 months
Strike or lock-out
strike or lock-out,
Temporary lay-off
plant closed,
no materials,
etc.)
Other causes
44
APPENDIX C
1941 CENSUS OF CANADA
Occupation, Industry and Status
Occupation
Industry
Status
Trade or
profession, as
stationary
engineer, insurance
agent, etc.
Give kind of product made or dealt
in or service rendered, and
branch of industry
Employer, own
account, wage-earner
Kind of product or
service, as for
example, rubber
shoes, drugs, etc.
Branch of industry,
as for example,
manufacturing,
retail trade, etc.
or unpaid family
worker
Occupational
Trend
Unemployment
Employment and Earnings
(For wage-earners only)
What was your
occupation in 1931?
(This question refers
only to persons 25
years of age and over)
If a wage-earner,
were you at
work on June 2,
1941?
(Yes or No)
If not,
give
reason
Number of weeks worked and
total earnings during 12
months prior to June 2, 1941
Weeks employed
including paid
holidays and
time off with
pay
Total
earnings
in dollars
45
HISTORICAL ESTIMATES OF CANADIAN LABOUR FORCE
1951 CENSUS OF CANADA
Nonvdnooo ivnsn
o\\ -^ «^ o \ <^ «*), eu ^\ o\\ a>\\
o
I o\\ -V\ w\\ «\\ *\\ *\\ «\' r*\\ eo\\ <*\
y - ,
o\\ -\\ «\\ «\\ *\\ ton ©° nV\ »\\ o\\
o\\ A\ «\\ «\\ *\\ »\\ «\\ n\\ »,\ »\\
> •■■'-•-'•■
| o^ A^ w^ b\^ ^ e\\ o^ *Y\ <o\\ oy
>=-
tpllOlTiiOll
S0i010i?0i!0 80l0!0l0!
lino «oiio M »"a S
»!*§!§!
§&
^»'
0 D 10 SO *0 SO 10 ■
^ioSlili" 1" FffflTil !
« *0 4 4 4 <H) <) 4 4iD i
rfiiil=i='-
iSlip.
'0 JO 50 10 fO |0 10 10 fOifO
10 4 4
i 4 i s
o>
w
9
P:
il
ill
S8S
i|«
iS
ill
Ill
innpf
■\ r
H
l\
!(
■i
13
W
ii
3 j
1 il
I !
lo
<£.
■8s:l
rJ««s
iilii
SO
4 0 4) -o -o -0 0 -o
f i;g gj gi |8 Kn git
fii|RggTOMHB<l l,g0)
46
APPENDIX C
1961 CENSUS OF CANADA
Questions 16-25 of the Population Questionnaire (Form 2A)
for all persons 15 years of age and over (as applicable)
16. Did you hove a job of
any hind last week ?
(Even il not at work, or part-time)
17 Did you look for *
' lost week ?
,n Did you have a job at any
'"time in the post 12 months ?
'^Number of hours usually
worked eoch week ?
If answer is "No"
to all three questions,
omit Questions 19-25
1-19 20-29 30-34 33-39
41-44 43-49 50+
(Omit
Questions
* 20-23)
ZO.For whom did you work
lost week, (or when you
last worked) ?
Nome of turn, government ooency.or other employer:
'What kind of business
or Industry wos this ?
% retail orocery.Mto manufacturing, city buillne trorwportotion:
What kind of work did
you do in this industry ?
At salt* clerk, loth* operator, pwrchailng ogent:
ZS.DId you operate your
own business or work for
others In this occupation P
WORKED FOR OTHERS
Wage or salary Unpaid family
OPERATED OWN BUSINESS
With Without
paid help » « paid help ,
24 '<> how many weeks did
you work for woges or
salary In the post 1 2 months ?
I-4| .*-*\ 14-26 27-39 4Q-46 49-52
(Include weeks worked port-time and leave with pay)
(Omit Question 25)
23.Whot was your gross wage
and solory income (before
deductions) in this period ?
0 1,000 2P00 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 IQ.OOQ 11,000
0 ^ . IQ0. „200. .3Q0. 4°0 500 600 700 600 900 i" jSjS?f "'S.bb6V ~
QUESTION 26 FOR ALL MALES 23 YEARS OF AGE AND OVER
*26.0id you ever hove ony
worlime service in the
octtve military forces of
In wha
ward) ?
Wars prior World War 1 World Wor II
'01914 11914-18! 11939-43)
1
In Korea
950-531
None
In smat forces ?
Conodioti
■ ■ Allied ■ • Both
)
10 1
(JUL
Grand-
child
Father or
mother
FarM
Or MStr
Oor r
tn-lo>
Other
relative
.0 - - o_
.10 1
_0_
.10.
_0_
10
_0_ _0_ _0.
.100. _I0_ _ 1 _
.100.
.10.
20 2
-30. '
20 2
30 3
20
30
20
30
30
£.*%.
-2°°. _20_
_30Q_ _30_
. 2 _
.3.
J00_
-30Q.
.20.
.30.
_ 2 _
_ 3_
.40. .4 .
_50_ .'
.60. _ 6 _
.40. _ 4 _
.SO 5
60 6
.40.
.0.
0
1
1
1
400_ 40
-?00_ .50. .
600 60
4
. 3.
6
400
joq.
600
40
.50.
60
4
.5.
6
.70 7
ao 8
Ledger
Porhw.
Emptovee
70 7
80 S
2
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
700 70
800 60
7
8
700
800
70
SO
7
8
_90_ _ 9 _
_C00_ ; _200_
inmate
90 9
.«■ re_.fi ft.
Primary
_ 4 .
. 4 .
_ 4 _
. 4 _
_ 4 .
900 90
9
900
90
9
arm-
place
Cilirtn-
Ship
Origin
Religion
Language
Employ-
ment
Industry (Ques
21 ]
Occupation (Ou
v ■»*
Femil* Na.
47
HISTORICAL ESTIMATES OF CANADIAN LABOUR FORCE
D. LABOUR FORCE SURVEY QUESTIONS
Reproduced here is the schedule used in the regular monthly Labour
Force Survey. The version shown is that in use in 1961. However, in
essential respects the questions asked were the same in 1951 as in 1961.
1
10 10 10
e^l
oo -o «0 »0 *0 "0 *0 ^0 «»0 H
on -n «n «n *n u»n «n -n »n «r
i
1
UJ
X
e
DC
O
m
3
4
-W4<M
4«M®H
4«M°M
4°HaM
44^4<A\
4«>HoM
4^»U
4444
4<M4
4444
44444
44444
44444
ill:
III?
■Ss»sS
gl5l!
2>SIS?I
nil
a St-
H ) 1 S} |! J8 «
I i
10 40 !0 :*
«U *U "U <°U ^U "U
«0 *0 «>0 »[' ^0 ffl0
1 » 1 s
?! ,1 ! I it i
|5 is a 8
1 S3 *
I II
= i a i R
0 10 10 10 fflfflfflfflfflaO
Cvi"1
48
APPENDIX D
ic-z waoj~|
W MMM
2 T. Make commenti on all vogue, difficult or unusual situations
hi
1 0 0
° s Is
3 * U •
g £ g
9.0 0
11 1 I
FOR "W", "L", OR "J" IN OUESTtON 14 OR 15 ASK
23. For vhcm did this person work *?
24. INDUSTRY In what kind of business or industry did this
person work?
.s
§
£
■g
*
I
z
o
is;
1!
to fi
csi£
5 ill
49
Statistics Canada Library
Hbliotheque StatisUque Canada
1010022444
This book was set Varitype, printed Offset and bound
by the Canadian Government Printing Bureau. The art
work for the cover was executed by Richard T. Logan,
Art Director, Dominion Bureau of Statistics.
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American Libraries
TV News
Understanding 9/11